The problem is legally that if you concede that life is at conception (personhood) the state arguably has a fundamental interest in protecting that life that counterbalances the fundamental interest that has been found for a pregnant woman's choice. This would have legal implications that should basically allow states to pass whatever they want against abortion. I imagine that's bad for the left.

Ryan has said he believes all abortion should be illegal even in the case of rape and incest, while Romney has said previously he believes it should be legal in those cases. Ryan said when he was first selected that he didn’t mind his running mate’s less stringent views because it was a “step in the right direction.”

I thought Biden did a great job. Apparently opinions are pretty evenly spread, but it was fun to (briefly) hear the indignation in the reaction on the conservative radio show after the debate. Biden's got some things in common with LBJ, which is a good thing.

The whole framing of the abortion debate in terms of when life does or does not begin, and thus using that criterion in determining its ethical status, is fundamentally ill-conceived. A better argument is just to say that, in some cases, it's morally acceptable to take the life of an innocent human being.

Ryan has said he believes all abortion should be illegal even in the case of rape and incest, while Romney has said previously he believes it should be legal in those cases. Ryan said when he was first selected that he didn’t mind his running mate’s less stringent views because it was a “step in the right direction.”

How do you simply "not mind" when you believe abortion in those instances to be the murder of an innocent human life? You can say it's a step in the right direction, but as far as you're concerned, what's the difference between a woman getting an abortion because she was raped and a woman getting one for an unwanted pregnancy that resulted from consensual sex?

The whole framing of the abortion debate in terms of when life does or does not begin, and thus using that criterion in determining its ethical status, is fundamentally ill-conceived. A better argument is just to say that, in some cases, it's morally acceptable to take the life of an innocent human being.

Though, if we're framing it from a Christian dogma pro-life position no human being is innocent due to original sin.